[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shivkumar S/O. Kishorilal Dalal vs Sau. Vaishali W/O. Shivkumar Dalal And ... on 11 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4089
1 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2018
Shivkumar S/o Kishorilal Dalal,
Age - 32 years, Occ- Service,
R/o. A101, near Jansewa Bank,
Dahisar (E), Mumbai. APPLICANT
Versus
1. Sau. Vaishali W/o Shivkumar Dalal,
Age-32 years, Occ-
2. Ku. Jui D/o Shivkumar Dalal,
Age-08 years, through her mother
natural guardian, Both R/o., C/o.
Arvind Hemlal Gujrathi, Near
Rajrajeshwari Apartment, Kela Plot,
Jatjarpeth, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. Sawan Alaspurkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Kamal Anandani & Mrs. Darshana Anandani & Mr. Bhavin
Suchak, Advocates for the Non-applicants.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 24th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th MARCH, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
1. By preferring this Revision, the Applicant has
challenged the judgment and order passed in Petition No.E-
117/2013 dated 15.12.2017 by Family Court, Akola, by which
the maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per
month to Non-applicant No.1 and Rs.20,000/- per month to the
Non-applicant No.2.
2. As per the contentions of the Applicant, the
marriage of the Applicant and the Non-applicant No.1 was
performed on 22.02.2007 at Barhanpur, Madhya Pradesh. After
marriage she resumed cohabitation at the house of the present
Applicant. As per her allegations after marriage the Applicant
started illtreating her on the say of his mother on account of
golden chain was not given to him in the marriage as well as
they were not properly respected in the said marriage. The
mother-in-law started taunting her. After some days, the
Applicant started demanding Rs. 8 Lakhs from her to repay the
loan which was obtained to purchase the flat at Mumbai but the
Non-applicant No.1 shown her inability to pay the amount, and
therefore, there was change in the behaviour of the Applicant
and his family members and they started illtreating her. The
3 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
Applicant was not permitting her to stay in the bed room. He
was not allowing her to communicate with her parents and she
was also restrained from going outside.
3. On 09.06.2007, her mother was not well and she
was restrained to meet her mother also and on her insistence
she was driven out of the house at the midnight, therefore she
constrained to take shelter at her uncle's house. After some
days, she came to Akola to meet her mother. Due to intervention
of her family members, the Applicant shown his willingness to
take her at Singapore. Therefore, she went alongwith him at
Singapore, wherein also his behaviour was not good towards
her. As she has not conceived, therefore on that count also, on
the say of his mother the Applicant started illtreating her. As she
was willing to cohabit with the present Applicant, she tolerated
all the illtreatments but finally she came to Akola for her
delivery but the Applicant and his family members have not
paid any heed towards her and even not came to meet her and
the newly born child.
4. On depositing the amount of Rs. 50,000/- by her
father in the name of newly born child, the present Applicant
4 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
has visited her parents house and took her back at Singapore.
The visa of the Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 was expired but the
Applicant has not extended the same, due to which, the
Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 constrained to leave Singapore and
returned back to Akola. After they returned to Akola, the
Applicant has not made any provision for their livelihood,
therefore she constrained to file the Application for
maintenance.
5. As per the contention of the Non-applicant No.1, the
Applicant is a Mechanical Engineer and drawing salary of Rs.3
Lakhs. There is no other person dependent on him. His father
gets pension and his brother running a restaurant, therefore
only the present Non-applicants are dependent on the Applicant
and he is having sufficient means to grant maintenance.
6. The said application is strongly opposed by the
present Applicant by filing his written statement. He denied all
the contentions. It is contended by the Applicant that, the
Non-applicant No.1 is an educated lady graduate in Law and
she was serving at Mumbai as well as at Singapore, therefore
she is able to maintain herself. It is further contended that, it
5 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
was the present Non-applicant No.1 who was not willing to stay
alongwith the Applicant and initially she filed the petition for
divorce, which was subsequently withdrawn. She also concealed
the fact that, she has received the maintenance in D.V.
proceeding also bearing Criminal M.A. No.1245/2013. It was
the Non-applicant No.1 who has withdrawn herself from the
company of the present Applicant. There is no refusal and
neglect on the part of the present Applicant, and therefore, she
is not entitled for any maintenance.
7. In support of the contention, the Non-applicant No.1
entered into the witness box and reiterated the contentions
raised in the application. She also examined her father Arvind
Hemlal Gujrathi. The present Applicant has also examined
himself by reiterating the contentions raised in the written
statement. After appreciating the evidence, the Family Court
held that there was a refusal and neglect on the part of the
present Applicant and awarded the maintenance at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- per month to Non-applicant No.1 and Rs.20,000/-
per month to the Non-applicant No.2.
6 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the
present Revision Application is preferred by the husband on the
ground that, the learned Family Court has not considered that
the maintenance is already granted to the Non-applicants in a
D.V. proceeding. This fact was concealed by the Non-applicant
No.1. The amount of maintenance is excessive and exorbitant
by converting the dollars into Indian rupee. The refusal and
neglect is also not proved by the Non-applicant No.1. Her
cross-examination shows that, she is able bodied person,
graduated in Law and also served at Mumbai as well as
Singapore, therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance.
9. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, in support of his
contention placed reliance on Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K.
Shobha Rani, AIR 2007 SC 1721; Kaushalya Vs. Mukesh Jain,
AIR OnLine 2019 SC 750; Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. AIR 2021 SC
569; Vishal s/o Rajesaheb Gore Vs. Aparna w/o Vishal Gore &
Anr., 2018(6) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 587; Shrawan Rajeramji Bansure
Vs. Ankita Shrawan Banasure, AIR OnLine 2023 BOM 1700;
K.N. Vs. R.G., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7704; Kalyan Dey
7 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC
200.
10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Non-applicants,
supported the judgment of the learned Trial Court and
submitted that, even accepting that the Non-applicants have
received the maintenance in D.V. proceeding, they have every
right to lead the life as per the status of the present Applicant.
The assets and liabilities of the present Applicant itself shows
that, he is having sufficient means to grant the maintenance. His
cross-examination also shows that, except the present
Non-applicants there is nobody who are dependent on him. On
the contrary, there is nothing on record to show that, the
Non-applicant No.1 is serving and able to maintain herself. She
has to incur the expenses towards her daughter, who is now
school going child, the prices of the essential commodities are
rising day by day and there is hike in education cost also.
Considering the status of the present Applicant, the
maintenance granted even after taking into consideration in
both the proceedings, the amount granted by the learned Family
8 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
Court is not excessive and exorbitant one. In view of that,
Revision being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
11. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire record it reveals that, the marriage between the Applicant
and the Non-applicant No.1 is not disputed. It is also not
disputed that, initially the Applicant was serving at Mumbai and
subsequently he joined the job at Singapore. The Non-applicant
No.2 born from the said wedlock, is also not disputed. As per
the contention of the Non-applicant No.1, after marriage for one
or the other reason she was illtreated and thereby she was
refused and neglected by the present Applicant, therefore she
constrained to file the application for grant of maintenance.
12. In support of her contention she stepped into the
witness box and filed affidavit of examination-in-chief vide
Exh.10. She has reiterated all the contentions as per her
application. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on
various documents like marriage card Exh.13, receipt issued by
Vishwakarma Jewellers Exh.14, receipt of Meena Gold Jewellers
Exh.15, receipt of Batu Pahat Gold Smith Singapore Exh.16,
receipt issued by Waman Haripeth Exh. 17, copy of the letters
9 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
Exhs.18 to 20 which was written by her to her mother, the copy
of E-mail sent to the present Applicant by her at Exh.21 and so
on.
13. Her cross-examination shows that, she has
completed graduation in law. She is also having knowledge of
accountancy. For about 4 years, she has cohabited with the
present Applicant at Singapore. During that period she worked
in three companies. She further admits that, considering her
ability the said companies offered job for her. In the month of
July 2013, she received offer from Three Star Company to join
the services but she denied that as she was carrying the
pregnancy, therefore she left the job. She stated that, as per the
wish of the present Applicant she should deliver a child in India
and therefore, she left the job. She further admits that, the
brother and father of the present Applicant never asked her to
deposit the salary in joint account. She is not aware about the
type of operation of the bank account. She specifically stated
that, it was not possible for her to cohabit with the present
Applicant due to the illtreatment, and therefore, she filed the
petition for dissolution of marriage. Her further
10 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
cross-examination shows that, the present Applicant is a
diabetic. Her in laws are old. Thus, from the cross-examination
an attempt was made to show that she is able bodied person
and able to earn, therefore she is not entitled for maintenance.
Further attempt was made to show that, she herself left the
company of the present Applicant, and therefore, there is no
refusal and neglect on the part of the present Applicant.
14. In support of her contention, she also examined her
father who has also supported the contention of the present
Non-applicant No.1. His cross-examination also shows that, the
Non-applicant No.1 has preferred a divorce petition which was
withdrawn by her. It further came in his cross-examination that,
his daughter was communicating with him from Mumbai as well
as from Singapore whenever a telephone used to be available
with her. Thus, from his cross-examination also, it was tried to
bring on record that there was no such illtreatment but she left
on her own accord.
15. The Applicant also entered into the witness box and
filed the affidavit-in-chief contending that, it was the
Non-applicant No.1 who left his house without any sufficient
11 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
reason. From the evidence it was the Non-applicant No.1 who
was not willing to cohabit with him and was in habit in raising
the quarrels and she herself left the company of the present
Applicant. She was in habit of giving abuses in a filthy language
and she was intended to incur the expenses only on her family
members, which was not accepted by him, and therefore, she
left the matrimonial house.
16. His cross-examination shows that, he is B.E.
Mechanical. Initially he was working in Navi Mumbai and
thereafter he shifted to Singapore. He resided in a joint family.
It came in his cross-examination that, he took the Non-applicant
No.1 at Singapore. He had joint account with the Non-applicant
No.1 at Singapore. His wife Non-applicant No.1 came to Akola
on 21.11.2011 for her delivery and stayed there till June 2012.
He further admits that, in December 2012 he came to India to
attend his brother's marriage but he returned to Singapore
without meeting the Non-applicant No.1. His cross-examination
further shows that, the visa of his wife and daughter for
Singapore was a dependent visa, which was valid upto
13.01.2013. His own visa was extended by him but the visas of
12 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
his wife and daughter was not extended. He further admits that,
at the time of his evidence he was working in Mumbai. His
company decides where he would live in Mumbai or places like
Oman. His father retired from the post of Sub Divisional
Engineer and receives a pension. His brother runs a restaurant.
He specifically admitted that, except the Non-applicants no
other persons are dependent upon him.
17. There is no dispute that the present Non-applicant
No.1 preferred an application bearing Criminal M.A.
No. 1245/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court
No.2, Akola, for grant of maintenance and the maintenance at
the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the Non-applicant No.1 and
Rs. 50,000/- to the Non-applicant No.2 i.e. total Rs.75,000/- per
month was granted. There is nothing on record to show that,
the Applicant had challenged the said order. Whether there is
refusal or neglect which is a requirement for grant of
maintenance and whether the same is established by the
Non-applicant No.1 is required to be seen.
18. The object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is to provide a summary remedy to save dependents
13 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
from destitution and vagrancy, and thus to serve a social
purpose apart from an independent obligation of the parties
under their personal law. Since the object is to prevent vagrancy
or destitution by means of a summary remedy before a
Magistrate, jurisdiction is preventive rather than remedial or
punitive. Foundation of an order Under Section 125 is the
neglect or refusal of the opposite party to maintain his wife,
child or parents. "Refusal" means a failure to maintain or denial
of the obligation to maintain after demand. "Neglect" on the
other hand, means a default or omission to maintain, in the
absence of a demand. Neglect or refusal may be implied from
the conduct of a party and need not be a formal refusal. Refusal
or neglect on the part of husband may be proved not only by
express words, but also by his conduct.
19. Torture or illtreatment in the husband's house would
be sufficient for refusal by the wife claimant to live with her
husband even though the husband may not be guilty personally.
Where a wife cannot reasonably hope to live with dignity with
her husband she may refused to live with him. The offer must
be bonafide and the same should not have been made with
14 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
object to escape the obligation to pay maintenance. The burden
that the wife is refusing to live with him is to be discharged by
the husband. But when one stand is proved, it is for the wife to
show that there are reasons for her living apart from the
husband. The object of Section 125 is to arm wife in difficulty
with a cause of action to get maintenance from her erring
husband. The second proviso to sub section 3 of Section 125 is
also relevant. Even though a person offers to maintain his wife
on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with
him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated
by her, and may make an order under this section
notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just
ground for so doing.
20. In the light of the above said settled provisions if the
evidence of the Applicant and the Non-applicant No.1 is
appreciated, the Non-applicant No.1 has narrated several
incidents as far as the illtreatment is concerned. She has also
produced the documentary evidence as far as the gift of the
golden ornaments is concerned. The admission given by the
present Applicant during the cross-examination that, the visa of
15 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
the Non-applicants is not extended though they were residing
alongwith him, itself is sufficient to show that there is negligent
and refusal by the present Applicant. His admission during
cross-examination that, though he visited India to attend his
brother's marriage but he has not visited the Non-applicants,
also sufficient to show that there is refusal and neglect on his
part. Admittedly, he has not made any provisions for their
livelihood as well as for their maintenance, is the additional
circumstance to show that there is refusal and neglect on his
part. The Applicant has not assigned any reasonable cause for
non-visiting the Non-applicant No.1 and especially the
Non-applicant No.2 who is his daughter though he visited India
to attend the marriage of his brother.
21. Neglect or refusal to maintain exist whenever there
is a breach of the obligation to maintain whether negligently or
deliberately whether justifiable and sufficient reasons or not for
separate residence. The conduct of the Applicant sufficiently
shows that he has refused and neglected her to maintain. Thus,
as far as the aspect of refusal and neglect is concerned, which is
sufficiently established by the Non-applicant No.1.
16 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
22. The admission was made by the Applicant to show
that, the Non-applicant No.1 was serving and she is able bodied
person, and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
There is no dispute that, she is a well educated lady and
admission on record shows that initially she was serving and she
has joined various jobs in Mumbai as well as at Singapore. Now
she is residing at Akola and no evidence is adduced by the
present Applicant to show that now she is serving and earning
for her livelihood. Thus, in the absence of any evidence it
cannot be said that she is having sufficient means to maintain
herself and her child.
23. On the contrary, the assets and liabilities filed on
record by the present Applicant shows that, he was earning
Rs. 3,12,000/- at Singapore and now he is serving in Mumbai.
Thus, this affidavit of assets and liabilities sufficiently shows
that, he is having sufficient means to maintain himself as well as
the Non-applicants. His cross-examination on record further
shows that, except the present Non-applicants no other person
is dependent on him. His father gets pension and his brother is
also running a restaurant. Thus, the Applicant appears to have
17 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
sufficient means to grant the maintenance. The contention
raised by the Applicant is that, the Non-applicant No.1 has
suppressed that she is getting maintenance under the D.V.
proceeding and the Family Court has not considered this aspect
while granting the maintenance. This submission made by the
learned Counsel for the Applicant requires some consideration.
24. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra), wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has given a direction which reads as under:
"(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and
avoid conflicting orders being passed in different
proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in
this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice
followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate
Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a
party under different statutes, the Court would consider an
adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the
previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any
further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent
proceeding;
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the
previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the
subsequent proceeding;
(iii) If the order passed in the previous proceeding/s
requires any modification or variation, it would be
required to be done in the same proceeding."
18 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
25. Thus, in view of successive claims for maintenance
are made by the party under different statutes the Court would
consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the
previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further
amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.
26. In the present case, admittedly, the Non-applicants
preferred an application under the D.V. proceeding. The learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola granted maintenance at
the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.1
and Rs. 50,000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2 under
the D.V. proceeding. The learned Family Court has also granted
maintenance to the present Non-applicants.
27. While granting the maintenance the status of the
parties is a significant factor, encompassing their social
standing, lifestyle, and financial background. The reasonable
needs of the wife and dependent children must be assessed,
including costs for food, clothing, shelter, education, and
medical expenses. The Non-applicant No.2 educational expenses
are to be incurred by the Non-applicant No.1. At the same time,
the Non-applicant No.1 educational and professional
19 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
qualifications as well as her employment history, play a crucial
role in evaluating their potential for self-sufficiency. Admittedly,
there is no evidence to show that the Non-applicant No.1 has
any independent source of income or owns property, and
therefore, the same is to be taken into consideration to
determine. At the same time considering that she is an educated
lady, the Applicant is also serving as Mechanical Engineer, and
therefore, she has to maintain the same standard of living as
well as she has every right to maintain the same standard of
living which was experienced by her during marriage. The
evidence on record further shows that, she left the job at
Singapore as she was pregnant and it was the wish of the
Applicant that she should deliver the child in India. Therefore,
she had sacrificed employment opportunities for family
responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring for elderly family
members, which impacted her career prospects.
28. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Vinny Paramvir Parmar Vs. Paramvir Parmar, (2011) 9 SCR
371, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, as there cannot be a
fixed formula or a straitjacket rubric for fixing the amount of
20 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
permanent alimony and only broad principles can be laid down.
The question of maintenance is subjective to each case and
depends on various factors and circumstances as presented in
individual cases. This Court in the above judgment stated that
the courts shall consider the following broad factors while
determining permanent alimony i.e. income and properties of
both the parties respectively, conduct of the parties, status,
social and financial of the parties, the respective personal needs,
capacity and duty to maintain others dependent on them,
husband's own expenses, wife's comfort considering her status
and the mode of life she was used to during the subsistence of
the marriage, among other supplementary factors.
29. In the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra), elaborated
upon the broad criteria and the factors to be considered for
determining the quantum of maintenance. The Hon'ble Apex
Court emphasizes that there is no fixed formula for calculating
maintenance amount; instead, it should be based on a balanced
consideration of various factors. Those factors are as under:
i. Status of the parties, social and financial.
ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children.
21 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
iii. Qualifications and employment status of the parties.
iv. Independent income or assets owned by the parties.
v. Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home.
vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
viii. Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance
obligations, and liabilities.
30. In the light of the above factors narrated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, if the facts of the present case are taken
into consideration, admittedly, the learned Family Court has
granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month to
the Non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 20,000/- per month to the
Non-applicant No.2. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court
No.2, Akola in D.V. proceeding also granted maintenance at the
rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the Non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 50,000/-
to the Non-applicant No.2 i.e. total Rs. 75,000/- per month.
Admittedly, the Non-applicant No.1 has to incur the expenses
towards her own maintenance as well as towards the
maintenance of her daughter and the education of her daughter
and the other needs. Admittedly, the prices of essential
commodities are touching to the sky. The education cost is also
22 REVN.56-2018.JUDGMENT.odt
rising day by day. The assets and liabilities affidavit filed by the
present Applicant shows that, he is having sufficient means to
grant the maintenance. The comfort considering the status of
her husband and other needs are to be taken into consideration.
Admittedly, the Applicant has no other responsibility except the
present Non-applicants. Therefore, even accepting that, the
maintenance was granted in D.V. proceeding and by adjusting
the same also, the amount awarded by the learned Family Court
is not excessive and exorbitant one. In view of that, Revision
Application being devoid of merits liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
31. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/03/2026 19:28:33
